Appeal 2007-0554
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,118 & 90/006,254
Patent 6,196,681 B1
We reject Appellant’s argument at oral hearing that the phrase
“unitary structure for an eye cover comprising, . . . a soft inner portion
adapted to engage the brow and nose of the wearer” in Appellant’s Claim 1
necessarily excludes the unitary structure for an eye cover comprising the
soft portion and hard portion of the nose piece depicted in Fecteau’s Figures
19-21, 25A and 25B (Transcript of Proceedings, August 15, 2007, Oral
Hearing, pp. 11-12). In light of the nominal description of the claimed
invention and lack of definition of the words and phrases used in the
Specification in support of Appellant’s claims, we conclude that a broader
reading of the scope of the Claim 1 subject matter, including the phrase
“adapted to engage the brow and nose” (Br. App. Claim 1), is both
reasonable and warranted. Nevertheless, the Examiner appears to have
adopted Appellant’s narrower interpretation of the scope of the claimed
invention in the final rejection. Accordingly, we turn to the question of
obviousness as it relates to the more narrowly claimed invention.
The claims were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the
combined teachings of Conway and Fecteau. The Examiner appears to have
argued that the unitary structure defined by Appellant’s Claim 1 would have
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art because it would
have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to make the unitary structure for an
eye covering which Conway makes by separately molding and chemically
bonding together two sections of soft and hard materials “by a two-shot
process in a single mold that chemically bonds the soft portion to the hard
portion” (Br. App. Claim 1) with reasonable expectation of success. The
Examiner’s argument stems from Fecteau’s teaching to form the soft and
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013